Multimedia forensic processes 489/2025

FOI Reference: 489/2025

Request:

With respect to multimedia forensic processes, could you please provide me with a copy of the most recent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), guidance documents, or policy documents held by your force.

For clarity, by multimedia forensics I refer specifically to the forensic analysis, enhancement, authentication, interpretation, and presentation of audio, video, and still-image material. This does not include general digital forensics (such as the extraction of data from computers, mobile devices, or other storage media).

I am solely concerned with processes dealing directly with audio, video, and image evidence. Specifically, please provide the material requested in the following four bullet points:

1. A copy of the SOPs, guidance documents, or policy documents covering the forensic processing, enhancement, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of audio, video, and image material for investigative or evidential purposes.
2. Any internal multimedia forensic workflows, protocols, or standard practices related to handling such material.
3. The names of software, tools, or systems used for these processes, including any associated training or operational guidance.
4. The quality assurance, validation, or review procedures used to ensure the accuracy, authenticity, and admissibility of multimedia forensic evidence.

If the full SOPs or documents cannot be shared, I kindly request the following information in place of the SOP as per the following seven points:

5. A summary or description of the multimedia forensic processes followed.
6. SOP titles, version numbers, and the dates of their creation, last update, and validation/approval.
7. The roles, departments, or individuals responsible for authoring, validating, or approving the SOPs.
8. The legislation, policies, standards, or external guidance referenced during the development and/or review of the SOPs.
9. Whether the SOPs have undergone any ethical review or approval, and details of any such review processes or bodies involved.
10. Whether the SOPs have been externally validated, peer-reviewed, or accredited by any agency, professional body, or external organization.
11. Whether any SOPs are currently under review, have recently been amended, or are scheduled for updates, and the relevant timelines if applicable.

In addition to the previous, please provide responses to the following four points regarding the use of emerging technologies:

12. Please detail whether your multimedia forensic unit currently uses or has trialled artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) tools for: o Authentication (e.g., detecting edits, deepfakes, or tampering) o Enhancement (e.g., audio/video/image quality improvement) o Analysis or interpretation (e.g., transcription, object recognition, pattern matching) Note: a simple response is acceptable here such as "Authentication: Use. Enhancement: Trialled. Analysis: Not used"
13. If applicable, the names or vendors of the AI/ML tools used.
14. Whether the use of these tools is governed by any SOPs, internal policies, or ethical guidelines.
15. Whether the adoption and use of AI/ML tools have been subject to ethical review, oversight, or risk assessment, and any details of such reviews or assessments.

Response 1:

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.

Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires -Powys Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption in question and

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however the following exemption has been applied to the whole of the information you have requested:

Section 21 – Information reasonably accessible by other means:

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a)information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though it is accessible only on payment, and

(b) information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making the information available for inspection) to members of the public on request, whether free of charge or on payment.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme.”

The information requested can be accessed via the following hyperlink –

https://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/foi-ai/dyfed-powys-police/publication-scheme/our-policies-and-procedures/Policies/criminal-investigation-department/digital-imaging-policy/

Responses 2-15:

I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does not hold the information requested, this is due to the fact that this Forensic Science Activity is not carried out internally at Dyfed Powys Police. The work is outsourced due to the requirement for UKAS accreditation.                                               

(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 12/05/2025)